» Articles » PMID: 33451161

Influence of Removing or Leaving the Prosthesis After Regenerative Surgery in Peri-Implant Defects: Retrospective Study: 32 Clinical Cases with 2 to 8 Years of Follow-Up

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2021 Jan 16
PMID 33451161
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the influence of removing or not removing a prosthesis after regenerative surgery on peri-implant defects.

Methods: Two different groups were compared (Group 1: removing the prosthesis; Group 2: maintaining the prosthesis), analyzing radiographic bone filling (n = 32 implants) after regenerative treatment in periapical radiographs. The peri-implant defects were measured before and after regenerative treatment using Bio-Oss (Geistlich Pharma, Wohhusen, Switzerland) and a reabsorbable collagen membrane (Jason, Botis, Berlin, Germany), the healing period was two years after peri-implant regenerative surgery. Statistical analysis was performed, and a Chi square test was carried out. To determine the groups that made the difference, corrected standardized Haberman residuals were used, and previously a normality test had been applied; therefore, an ANOVA or Mann-Whitney U test was used for the crossover with the non-normal variables in Group 1 and Group 2.

Results: The results obtained suggest that a regenerative procedure with xenograft, resorbable membrane, and detoxifying the implant surface with hydrogen peroxide form a reliable technique to achieve medium-term results, obtaining an average bone gain at a radiographic level of 2.84 mm (±1.78 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was not removed after peri-implant bone regenerative therapy and 2.18 mm (±1.41 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was removed during the healing period.

Conclusions: There are no statistically significant differences in the response to treatment when removing or keeping the prosthesis after regenerative surgery in peri-implant defects.

Citing Articles

Surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shahbazi S, Esmaeili S, Shirvani A, Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent. 2025; 16(2):144-159.

PMID: 39758267 PMC: 11699266. DOI: 10.34172/japid.2024.013.


Antibacterial and Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Peptide KN-17.

Zhang Q, Yu S, Hu M, Liu Z, Yu P, Li C Microorganisms. 2022; 10(11).

PMID: 36363705 PMC: 9699635. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms10112114.


Incidence of Peri-Implantitis and Relationship with Different Conditions: A Retrospective Study.

Astolfi V, Rios-Carrasco B, Gil-Mur F, Rios-Santos J, Bullon B, Herrero-Climent M Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(7).

PMID: 35409826 PMC: 8998347. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19074147.

References
1.
Monje A, Pons R, Insua A, Nart J, Wang H, Schwarz F . Morphology and severity of peri-implantitis bone defects. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21(4):635-643. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12791. View

2.
Wiltfang J, Zernial O, Behrens E, Schlegel A, Warnke P, Becker S . Regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis bone defects with a combination of autologous bone and a demineralized xenogenic bone graft: a series of 36 defects. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010; 14(3):421-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00264.x. View

3.
Serino G, Strom C . Peri-implantitis in partially edentulous patients: association with inadequate plaque control. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 20(2):169-74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01627.x. View

4.
Pontoriero R, Tonelli M, Carnevale G, Mombelli A, Nyman S, Lang N . Experimentally induced peri-implant mucositis. A clinical study in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994; 5(4):254-9. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050409.x. View

5.
. 1999 International International Workshop for a Classification of Periodontal Diseases and Conditions. Papers. Oak Brook, Illinois, October 30-November 2, 1999. Ann Periodontol. 2000; 4(1):i, 1-112. DOI: 10.1902/annals.1999.4.1.i. View